Penn Harris Madison School Corporation v. Howard

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed a $200,000 jury verdict against Penn Harris Madison School Corporation for injuries sustained by 17-year-old David Howard while using a pulley apparatus for a school play. The court held that the jury instruction applying a standard based on a person of like age, intelligence, and experience was legally incorrect because individuals over age 14 are generally held to an adult standard of care, but found the error harmless. The court also held that the last-clear-chance instruction was unsupported by the evidence and harmless, and did not reach the plaintiffs’ argument concerning the availability of contributory negligence against a school corporation.

Holdings

1. Under Indiana law, absent special circumstances, a person over fourteen must exercise the standard of care of an adult rather than the standard of a person of like age, intelligence, and experience.
2. The erroneous standard-of-care instruction did not require reversal because PHM failed to show a reasonable probability that its substantial rights were adversely affected.
3. A last-clear-chance instruction is supported only when the evidence permits a finding that the defendant had the last opportunity, through reasonable care, to avoid the plaintiff's injury. Because no such evidence existed here, giving the instruction was error, but the error was harmless.
4. Indiana's comparative-fault statute does not apply to governmental entities; consequently, common-law contributory-negligence principles remain available when a governmental entity is the defendant in negligence litigation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the jury instruction stating that Howard should be held to the care of a person of like age, intelligence, and experience incorrectly stated Indiana's standard of care for a seventeen-year-old.
2. Whether the trial court erred by giving a last-clear-chance instruction when the evidence did not show that the school corporation had the last opportunity to avoid Howard's injury.
3. Whether the defense of contributory negligence was unavailable to the governmental school corporation because of schools' special obligation of care to pupils.

Disposition

affirmed